Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Commentary: Should the Belmont Report Be Extended to Animal Research

  • BERNARDO AGUILERA and DAVID WENDLER

Abstract

  • An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided below. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Copyright

Footnotes

Hide All

Acknowledgements: Thanks to David DeGrazia and Will Schupmann for helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Source of funding: This work was funded by the Intramural Research Program at the NIH Clinical Center.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are the authors’ own. They do not represent the position or policy of the National Institutes of Health, the US Public Health Service, or the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Footnotes

References

Hide All

Notes

1. Ferdowsian, H, Johnson, SM, Johnson, J, Fenton, A, Shriver, A, Gluck, J. A Belmont Report for animals? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2020;29(1):1937. Throughout this paper, we use ‘animals’ to denote non-human animal species.

2. Russell, WMS, Burch, RL. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique . London: Methuen; 1959. Replacement refers to methods that avoid or replace the use of at least some animals in an area where those animals would otherwise have been used. Reduction refers to any strategy that will result in fewer animals being used. Refinement refers to the modification of procedures to minimize pain and distress.

3. See LaFollette, H. Animal experimentation in biomedical research. In: Beauchamp, TL, Frey, RG, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011:797825.

4. Beauchamp, TL. The Belmont Report. In: Emanuel, E, Grady, C, Crouch, RA, Lie, R, Miller, FG, Wendler, D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008:149–55, at 152.

5. Georgetown University. The Archival Collection of the National Commission of the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Box #4, Meeting #15. February, 1976:13–6, at 6.

6. The authors also use the term “impaired,” which denotes the same idea of something that is unable to function according to a relevant standard.

7. Hereafter, we refer to “experiential welfare interests” just as “interests.”

8. DeGrazia, D. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1996, at 187.

9. Some animals may experience considerable harms as a consequence of being captive. Great apes and dolphins, for example, may have the cognitive sophistication to have some of their desires frustrated by otherwise comfortable captivity.

10. Seth, AK, Baars, BJ, Edelman, DB. Criteria for consciousness in humans and other mammals. Consciousness and Cognition 2005;14:119–39. See also Boly, M, Seth, A, Wilke, M, Ingmundson, P, Baars, B, Laureys, S, Edelman, DB, Tsuchiya, N. Consciousness in humans and non-human animals: Recent advances and future directions. Frontiers in psychology 2013;4:625; and Panksepp, J, Lane, RD, Solms, M, Smith, R. Reconciling cognitive and affective neuroscience perspectives on the brain basis of emotional experience. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 2017;76:187215.

11. Regan, T. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2004.

12. Beauchamp, TL. Rights theory and animal rights. In: Beauchamp, TL, Frey, RG, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2011:198227.

13. Cavalieri, P. The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001.

14. Cochrane, A. Animal rights and animal experiments: An interest-based approach. Res Publica 2007;13:293318.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to David DeGrazia and Will Schupmann for helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Source of funding: This work was funded by the Intramural Research Program at the NIH Clinical Center.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are the authors’ own. They do not represent the position or policy of the National Institutes of Health, the US Public Health Service, or the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Commentary: Should the Belmont Report Be Extended to Animal Research

  • BERNARDO AGUILERA and DAVID WENDLER

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.